LASC ruling on use of prior cases in reviewing general damages

Today, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued a significant decision on appellate review of general damages. In Pete v. Boland Marine & Manufacturing Co., 2023-C-170 (La. 10/20/23), the LASC holds that, in determining whether a factfinder abused its discretion in assessing general damages, “an appellate court is to include a consideration of prior awards in similar cases, as well as the particular facts and circumstances of the case under review.” Id., p. 10. Prior cases held that a reviewing court could look to prior cases involving similar injuries only after finding an abuse of discretion, and then only to determine the highest or lowest reasonable award. As the LASC explained in Pete, this left reviewing courts with “no objective, neutral, or equitable way to measure whether a general damage award is, in fact, an abuse of discretion.” Id., p. 8. This led the LASC to find that “the abuse of diiscretion standard lacks parameters and, for that reason, we are compelled to find an approach that includes an element of objectivity.” Id., p. 7.

What this means for appellate practitioners is that prior cases involving similar injuries are now relevant in showing that the award under review is abusively high or low. At the same time, prior awards do not establish a uniform scale. Consideration of prior awards is merely “a starting point. No two cases will be identical. The review of prior awards will simply service to illustrate and supply guidance in the determination of damages.” Id., p. 9.